We use Google Analytics to see which pages are read and how the site is used, so we know what to improve. This only runs if you accept. See our privacy notice for details.

Dáil

DAIL EIREANN COURTS (WINDING UP) BILL, 1923. - COMMITTEE STAGE RESUMED.

Bill Dáil Éireann Courts (Winding-Up) Bill, 1923
Enacted

No. 33 of 1923 ›

I was speaking when we adjourned last evening on Section 27. Overnight we considered to what extent we could meet the objections by Deputy FitzGibbon, and I am prepared to ask the leave of the Dáil to insert an amendment in Sub-section 1, Section 27, as follows:—

"In line 11, to delete all from and including the words `time shall be' to the end of the sub-section, and to insert in lieu thereof the words `Court may if it is satisfied that justice so requires, extend such time to any date not being later than three months after the passing of this Act."

I think that that goes some distance at any rate to meet the objection, and the case which Deputy FitzGibbon urged against that section.

Comment on this

That goes a considerable distance to meet my objection, but I would ask the Minister to consider between this and the next stage whether he would not go a little further and add a proviso: "Provided always that this section shall not apply in the case of any land which shall be conveyed or assured bona fide and for valuable consideration.” One of the great difficulties that this section has created in my mind is in regard to people who have got—as I know of my own knowledge some people have—a statutory title to land, and have paid money for it, and the vendors have gone away with that money. This section would enable the unfortunate man who paid money for land under a good title to be ejected from that land, and there would be no means of recovering the purchase money he had paid to the person who may have gone away. I do urge the Minister, now that he has seen that this is not a perfect section, to consider whether he cannot make it very much better than it is by at least protecting those people who have got property for which they have paid good money. It seems to me that the merest justice requires that people of that kind should be protected. These people do not seem to fall within the provisions of the amendment that the Minister has already indicated his willingness to introduce. A simple proviso such as I have read would meet the case. Otherwise I am grateful to the Minister for the way he has endeavoured to meet the objections I have put forward.

Comment on this
Mr. O'HIGGINS

I would be prepared to accept the Deputy's addition to this amendment.

Comment on this

I will put it down for the Report Stage.

Amendment by Mr. O'Higgins put and agreed to.

Comment on this